As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Field Guide to 9-11 Truthlings

I've probably linked to this before, but it came across my screen this afternoon and provided a few smiles. Nico can be merciless with his scorn for the 9-11 Truthlings. Just for fun, I thought I'd check what categories I fall into:

The Bush regime is certainly guilty of committing massive crimes against humanity -- few would care to dispute that -- and the Bush regime is certainly guilty of treason against the people of the United States -- again, few dispute that fact.

isn't all-together there. I mean, yeah, the guy does a decent job of tearing apart the 9/11 conspiracy wackos, but me endorsing him would be rather like endorsing a scientologist just because he happens to have written a good article debunking intelligent design. It's just wrong. There's obviously something wrong with the guy, and I don't want others associating him with me even if he did happen to write something intelligent.

I consider waterboarding and holding people without do process a "Crime against humanity". Bush doesn't deny doing this. I rather die in the next terrorist attack as an AMERICAN than live a kind of 'Cuban light' country torturing people. I mean "Would Jesus do it" I also think going to war by lying to the American people is a "crime against humanity". The downingstreet memo is all the evidence I need. Did the Italians create the yellowcake evidence for Bush? Is there a "Downingstreet memo in Italy? How stupid was the chemical truck CAD drawing? The first time I saw it I said to myself "we have sats that can see the numbers on a license plate but we can't take a photo of a truck?"

The same tactics used by conspiracy theorists are being used on the people by Bush. The republicans say "Even Clinton said he had WMD." but leave out the fact that that was in 1998 when he DID have WMD. David Kay, Bush's hand picked weapon inspector said in a report Clinton blew the last of it up during operation desert fox. This isn't a liberal saying this.

I could go on pointing out lies on top of lies said by the republicans in office but most republicans in the face of this evidence will just "deny" it.

Sorry for the hijack. We return to your regular broadcast. :P

If you're going to say Their is something wrong with me I hope at least you can back it up with evidence. Where am I wrong...

I consider waterboarding and holding people without do process a "Crime against humanity".

And you're wrong. Sorry.

I also think going to war by lying to the American people is a "crime against humanity".

And you're wrong about that too. Sorry.

None of these things are open to discussion. Your opinion on them is irrelevant. Go read up on the Hague conventions.

The rest of your post...well, it's replete with misconceptions and mistakes, but I don't want to hijack this thread any further. I just wanted to point out that the definition of "crimes against humanity" does not hinge on your personal opinion.

I'm more concerned about the claims that Atta was on the CIA payroll. I don't care if fellow debunkers dislike the president or would like him up for war crimes/impeachment as long as it's not 9-11 kookery.

I don't care if they dislike the president either, but there's a limit to the kind of rhetoric that's reasonable. There's a HUGE difference between saying "I think we should have never gone to war in Iraq", and screaming "HANG ALL DA NAZIBUSHITLER AND HIS HALIBURTONEXXONTEXACO WAR CRIMINAL CRONIES!!!" while torching an effigy of Bush and shitting on the American flag. Just like there's a big difference between reasonable criticism of Israel, and anti-semitism. Or a big difference between asking questions about 9/11, and being a full-out twoofer.

I can deal with opposing viewpoints, sure, and I love talking to people whom I disagree with. But when they hit a certain level of rhetoric and fanaticism, they simply become a fringe element which isn't worth engaging in dialogue with.

When did people start trusting politicians? That's what I'd like to know.

One doesn't have to trust a politician to agree with one who says that the earth revolves around the sun or that grass is green and the sky is blue. And the facts of 9-11, that Islamist extremists hijacked four aircraft and crashed them into three targets and one non-target, are just as incontrovertible, as is the fact that those of you who believe otherwise and who are not intentionally trying to divert attention from the real perpetrators as part of an anti-American agenda are kooks.

Anyone who avoids your groupthink mentality and does a few hours of research will know the official story is fucking B.S.

And anyone who does a bit more than a few hours, meanwhile, will realise that your side are desperately pulling loigical fallacies and bad science out of their arses.

That comment reminds me of a quote I once heard from a Creationist; "You don't have to be a genius to realise Darwin's theory is bunk!" Indeed you don't - it seems to be a prerequisite for anti-evolutionists to be complete idiots, and so it is with Truthers too.

" ...the earth revolves around the sun or that grass is green and the sky is blue."

Really? Oh my.

"That comment reminds me of a quote I once heard from a Creationist"

So questioning 9/11 puts me in the same boat as a creationist.

This is called a red herring.

You guys(or gals) are full of shit. You have zero credibility. You support a story that has more holes than a block of swiss cheese and is supported and backed by a completely corrupt administration. You should be ashamed aligning yourselves with criminals.

Maybe you support O'Reilly and would like to see a completely openly fascist police state where those who question 9/11 should be in detention camps.

Hahahaha! Yes, I can hear the black helicopters coming as we speak. Newsflash, idiot - no-one is trying to get you put into detention camps. No-one has said anything even approaching that.

The reason? You're not that dangerous. You're not as popular as you think you are. Hell, you can't even agree on a coherent theory, let alone form a credible political movement. Your 'scholars' are squabbling, your radio hosts keep on falling for obvious hoaxes, your filmmakers keep getting called out on their obvious lies, the meida is reporting on your associations with Holocaust deniers, everyone in your silly little club suspects everyone else of being a disinfo agent.

Face it, bud - without that phoney 84% statistic to cling onto, your movement looks like it's failing hard. UFO obsessives always think the gubmint is out to get them too. They're full of shit as well.

Too bad there's only 16% of you losers. I don't even know one personright now who buys the official story.

Maybe you just associate with really stupid people - ever considered that?

I consider waterboarding and holding people without do process a "Crime against humanity".

Sorry, neither is.

I don't have any problem with waterboarding - since it can't hurt you, I have problems with the latter point, however.

Also, lying to your people isn't a crime against humanity.

Crime against humanity is defined as "a crime or series of crimes, such as genocide, directed against a large group because of race, religion, country of origin, or other reason unconnected with any individual's responsibility for having committed a criminal act" (dictionary.com).

So you might be able to weasel racial profiling in there, but that's about it.

So questioning 9/11 puts me in the same boat as a creationist.

This is called a red herring.

Isn't it cute when they try to point out logical fallacies but are wrong? 9/11 "Truthers" use the same method of thinking as creationists. The analogy is quite apt, whether your dumb ass understands it or not.

Alex, if you want to take this to E-mail I would love a lively debate with someone who isn't a kook.

Sure. ducimus + nospam at gmail dot com. It's been a while since I've had a decent e-mail exchange with an intelligent individual who disagrees with me :)

Thanks Pat for understanding the reason I posted this and not getting offended. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

I hope you don't think I was offended either. I appreciate the article itself, I just don't feel comfortable aligning myself with people who hold extreme views on other issues. To me it'd almost be the equivalent of the 9/11 deniers welcoming holocaust deniers with open arms (although I don't class rabbid Bush opponents anywhere near as low as holocaust deniers). I prefer to separate myself from ideologies I disagree with, even when the individuals who espouse them happen to agree with me on some common issues.

Spoonfed:

So questioning 9/11 puts me in the same boat as a creationist.

This is called a red herring.

No, it's called an accurate comparison. All True Believers have certain things in common. Whether it be 9/11 deniers, the UFO abduction crowd, Bigfoot "researchers", moon-hoaxers, holocaust deniers, creationists, or what have you, they all use the same techniques to try and "prove" their theories. And they all fail miserably.

No, it's called an accurate comparison. All True Believers have certain things in common. Whether it be 9/11 deniers, the UFO abduction crowd, Bigfoot "researchers", moon-hoaxers, holocaust deniers, creationists, or what have you, they all use the same techniques to try and "prove" their theories. And they all fail miserably.

anyone who believe what you just wrote has no brain. And anyone who writes crap like that is full of shit.

We have to find a supercomputer, software and someone who knows how to use it. The toofers love to ask questions and make challenges they know can't be answered so they think it makes them selves look good